User:Palma AJ/Kyphosus sandwicensis/LilaRM Peer Review

This peer review is for User: Palma AJ.


 * 1) I think the article does a great job of providing a lot of information about the Kyphosus Sandwicensis, including its classification, physical appearance, and human use. The article is structured well and provides a lot of detail about each of these topics. Overall, it seems like a great complement to the existing information out there about this fish. Thank you for taking the time to peer review my article.
 * 2) It looks like the article is focused specifically on the Kyphosus Sandwicensis species, rather than the genus or family. The subtitles for the different sections seem appropriate and provide a good overview of the information that’s covered in the article. The information under each section also seems appropriate to me, but it’s possible that some of the content could be moved around to provide a better flow. As for the writing style and language, it seems appropriate for a worldwide audience and provides concise and objective information. I agree with you when you said I could move around some sections to have a better flow, thank you for that.
 * 3) It looks like the user used a variety of reputable sources to gather information about his species.
 * 4) The article is well-structured and provides a lot of useful information. However, one suggestion I have is that the article could benefit from more visuals, such as pictures of the Kyphosis Sandwicnesis or of the different dishes that it can be used in. Additionally, it might be helpful to provide more context around some of the technical terms that are used in the article, in order to make the information more accessible to a wider audience. I think the article is close to being ready for prime-time, but could benefit from a few more rounds of editing and refinement to ensure that the language is concise and clear.
 * 5) Based off of what I’ve seen on the article so far, I think the most important thing the user could do to improve the article is to add more visuals and provide more context around technical terms. This would make the information more accessible and help to keep the readers engaged. Adding on to that, a few more rounds of editing and refinement could help as well.
 * 6) I also think that it’s important to make sure that my own article is well-structured and provides a lot of useful information. It could also benefit from more pictures of short clips to make the information more accurate. It is also most important to make sure that the article is well-edited before publishing. I completely agree with you when you say I could add more visuals, I'll make sure to add pictures in my final draft. Thank you for your peer review.

Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Please answer the following questions in detail addressed to the classmate whose article you are reviewing. Remember this is constructive feedback, so be polite and clear in your suggestions for improving their article. We are all working together to improve the Wikipedia pages for the amazing species.

Use a different font style (bold or italic) for your answers so it is easy for the author to see your comments!


 * 1) First, what does the article do well? (Think about content, structure, complementing the existing article, writing, etc.)
 * 2) * Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
 * 3) Check the main points of the article:
 * 4) * Does the article only discuss the species the article is about? (and not the genus or family)
 * 5) * Are the subtitles for the different sections appropriate?
 * 6) * Is the information under each section appropriate or should anything be moved?
 * 7) * Is the writing style and language of the article appropriate? (concise and objective information for a worldwide audience)
 * 8) Check the sources:
 * 9) * Is each statement or sentence in the text linked to at least one source in the reference list with a little number?
 * 10) * Is there a reference list at the bottom?
 * 11) * Is each of those sources linked with a little number?
 * 12) * What is the quality of the sources?
 * 13) Give some suggestions on how to improve the article (think of anything that could be explained in more details or with more clarity or any issues addressed in the questions above):
 * 14) * What changes do you suggest and how would they improve the article?
 * 15) * Is the article ready for prime-time and the world to see on Wikipedia? If not, how could the author improve the article to be ready?
 * 16) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 17) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?